Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

, Volume 88, Issue 5, pp 413–422 | Cite as

Constitutionally Relevant Imperfections of Judicial Authority in the Russian Federation

  • M. I. KleandrovEmail author
Point of View


Fundamental drawbacks of the current domestic organizational and legal framework of all three components of judicial authority are considered—structure, proceedings, and status—which are in one way or another inconsistent with the provisions of article 10, part 1 of article 19, part 5 of article 32, part 1 of article 46, part 1 of article 47, clause “l” of part 1 of article 72, part 2 of article 118, and parts 2 and 3 of article 128 of the Russian Constitution. In the author’s opinion, local changes in individual legislative regulations and adjustments of law enforcement practices would not remedy the situation. Scientifically secured development, approval, and implementation of a state project under the working title “A Fair Trial” are necessary to modernize radically and intricately the entire mechanism of Russian justice, which is comparable in scale with the Judicial Reform of 1864.


court judicial authority justice mechanism fundamental drawbacks constitutionally relevant imperfections state project “A Fair Trial” 



  1. 1.
    S. J. Lec, Myśli nieuczesane (Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków, 1957).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Resolution no. 1 of the VIII All-Russia Congress of Judges of December 19, 2012, ‘On the State of the Judicial System of the Russian Federation and the Main Vectors of Its Development,’” Ross. Yustitsiya, No. 2, 37–49 (2013).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. A. Solov’ev, European Models of the Organization and Functioning of the Bodies of the Community of Judges: The Kingdom of Belgium and the French Republic (Mosk. Gos. Univ. im. O.E. Kutafina, Moscow, 2016) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Excerpts on the History Behind the Constitution of the Russian Federation: The Constitutional Commission: Shorthand Reports, Proceedings, Reports (1990–1993), in 6 vols., Vol. 4: 1993, Book 2 (Volters Kluver, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. I. Kleandrov, On the Council of the Judiciary of the Russian Federation (Norma, Moscow, 2016) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. M. Khudolei, “Is the constitutional (statutory) court necessary in a subject of the Russian Federation?,” Vestn. Perm. Univ., Yur. Nauki, No. 34, 391−401 (2016).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. V. Grishchenko, “Access to the protection of subjective rights within the framework of administrative proceedings in Russia in the context of universal standards of access to justice,” Zh. Konstituts. Pravosudiya, No. 6, 13−21 (2017).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. I. Kleandrov, “On the necessity to acquire a legal status by unregistered entrepreneurs,” Predprinimatel’skoe Pravo, No. 3, 3−13 (2015).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Journal of the Congress of the People’s Deputies of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, No. 30, Art. 1792 (1992).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. K. Gorbuz, M. A. Krasnov, E. A. Mishina, and G. A. Satarov, Transformation of the Russian Judicial Authority: An Integrated Study (Norma, St. Petersburg, 2010) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collection of Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, No. 13, Art. 1447 (1994).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. N. Demidov, The Constitutional (Statutory) Justice of the Subjects of the Russian Federation As an Institution for the Protection of Human and Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms (Idel-Press, Kazan, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Resolution of the Council of Judges of Moscow no. 131 of July 1, 2016, On the Observance by a Retired Judge of the Requirements of the Law of the Russian Federation On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation.Google Scholar
  14. 14. Cited February 12, 2018.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Trifonova, “The judicial reform is slowed down,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Feb. 28 (2018).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. M. Amosov, “Revisiting the goals of justice,” in Russian Yearbook of the Civil and Arbitration Process. 2001 (Norma, Moscow, 2002), No. 1, pp. 1−9 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. I. Kleandrov, The Mechanism of a Judge’s Ethical Responsibility: Problems of Formation (Norma, Moscow, 2017) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. I. Kleandrov, “Problems of the judicial authority and academic science,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, No. 9 (2014).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. G. Kucherena, “Your electronic honor,” Izvestiya, Sep. 26 (2017).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Ya. Khabrieva and N. N. Chernogor, “Law in the conditions of digital reality,” Zh. Ross. Prava, No. 1, 85−102 (2018).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. A. Gadzhiev, “Is an agent robot a person? (The search for legal forms to regulate a digital economy),” Zh. Ross. Prava, No. 1, 15−29 (2018).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of State and Law, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations